MURALIDHAR D Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER joined the services of the central Bank of India ('bank' for short) as a clerk in the year 1966 and thereafter he was promoted as an Officer in Junior Management grade, Scale I and designated as sub-Accountant with effect from August 31, 1984. While he was working as Sub-Accountant at Bellary Branch of the Bank, he was kept under suspension by issuing a memo dated August 17, 1991 in contemplation of departmental enquiry proceedings for the alleged financial irregularities said to have been committed by him while working as Branch manager at Pattadakal Branch of the respondent-Bank.

(2.) THE Disciplinary Authority of the Bank had issued a charge memo dated April 18, 1992, inter alia alleging two charges against the petitioner. The first charge is that while working as incharge of Bills Purchase department of the Bank, petitioner had purchased on various dates cheques/ withdrawals on various outstanding branches and had not ensured their realisations which were ultimately turned out to be fraudulent transactions. As a second charge, it was alleged that the petitioner had not taken steps to ensure proper credit of the proceeds of the outstation cheques lodged by the constituents to the respective accounts. In the memorandum to which the Articles of Charge was annexed, it was stated that the Articles of Charges listed would constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3 read with Regulation 24 of the Central Bank of India Officer employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he could not satisfactorily answer the charge memo, since the charge-sheet did not disclose the list of documents based on which and the list of witnesses based on whom the charges were alleged against the petitioner. Further, the vagueness of the charges coupled with non-supply of essential materials along with the charge memo, denied a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to enter his defence.